Our clients use Netskope because they want to move to a SaaS solution. They're using an increasing number of SaaS applications. An on-premises firewall or URL filter isn't sufficient anymore. Netskope is unique in recognizing different instances of SaaS applications and the activities people can do. They have more control over where their data goes.

The most valuable feature of Netskope is that it is a SaaS-delivered solution. It's somewhere running in the cloud, and there's no limitation in performance like you would have with hardware. You need to change hardware all the time.

However, this platform grows when your company grows, and you have more employees and more traffic. You don't need to think about that anymore. The solution also provides granular control over the SaaS applications that people are using.

It's like moving from URL filtering or a web proxy to a real CASB. Netskope takes it a step further by recognizing if you're logging into your corporate Office 365, a private one, or a competitor's Office 365.

The cloud firewall, which is one of Netskope's latest developments, could be improved further. I would like to see more threat protection in Netskope's Zero Trust Network Access. Functionality-wise, the solution's Zero Trust Network Access is a great replacement for VPNs. However, having more security functions in there would be nice.

I have been working with Netskope for around five years.

I've never encountered an outage with Netskope. Everything was always working because its points of presence were very redundant. If its processes recognize that something in one point of presence might not be running as it should, you get redirected without knowing.

I rate the solution's stability ten out of ten.

Our clients for Netskope are fairly big enterprises and government organizations. Netskope's scalability is perfect, and you don't have to think about it. It doesn't matter if you have 500 employees or 10,000 employees. The solution automatically grows. Their points of presence are overscaled and oversized, so they'll take care of that.

I rate the solution's scalability ten out of ten.

Netskope's technical support is very good, but it's similar to the technical support of most other tools like Palo Alto or Check Point.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is really easy, especially when you roll out the client. Migrating from an explicit proxy to their solution has exactly the same setup. Netskope easily integrates into any solution that you already have.

The solution's deployment time depends on what you want to include. If you need to migrate a very big web proxy configuration, Netskope has excellent professional services that will prepare configurations. So, it's ready to use directly. The slowness is not because of Netskope. It's because you need to have all your employees connected to the network, and this new software needs to be installed.

However, that can all be automated. You can have it running in minutes. Netskope already has a very good basic policy. If you're just doing the inline CASB, you roll out the Netskope Client or setup the explicit proxy and have a basic URL filtering policy that directly works.

If you have a couple of 1,000's employees, then, of course, it will take a while. You do it in bunches. People start up their laptops, install this new software, and it's there. Preparation-wise, it might take a few weeks, but the actual rollout is done as soon as people can run updates on their laptops.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution’s initial setup an nine out of ten.

We have seen a return on investment with Netskope because everything runs in the cloud. You don't need to think of the sizing. The solution's user interface is really simple and easy to manage. You don't need many people, hardware replacements, or shipping things. The tool is very efficient and saves a lot of time.

Netskope is a premium service, and its pricing ranges from medium to expensive. Netskope is in the top range when it comes to pricing. It all depends on the functionalities you require and get the licences for. The combined solution is more cost effective than a combination of other vendors point solutions.

Netskope is a cloud-based solution. All its security functions run in a cloud. You only need to install a client to get the traffic to the cloud, set up an IPsec tunnel, or set up your explicit proxy to get the traffic through the cloud.

You don't need to install anything on-prem except when you use their SD-WAN solution. We're talking about the CASB side. They also have an SD-WAN solution. 

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

My primary use case was finding a SaaS tool to bring the entire organization under a single network. I also needed features like web filtering, proxy, and protection.

Accuracy could be improved.

I have been using Netskope for six months.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes around two to three weeks. We worked altogether with operation team for deployment.

It saves 20 percent of our money.

Before, it was a lot cheaper. Now they're at a higher price.

We have connected our local network and AD also. It is moderately difficult.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Cisco Umbrella and plan to replace it with Netskope. We will start with the security model and other policies. 

We use Cisco VPN for remote access. Additionally, we have started implementing Netskope with a strong focus on security. Our primary goal is to protect users from accessing malicious sites. We also plan to implement DLP based on our data, as data security is our main concern.

The solution offers granular control over uploads and downloads. Previously, we lacked monitoring and control over downloads from malicious sites, but now, with Netskope, we can block such downloads. We are currently in the testing phase of implementing DLP, specifically for personally identifiable information data. We don't want it to be uploaded to the cloud. 

I'm currently involved in integrating Netskope with SentinelOne in our organization. The goal is to consolidate our alert monitoring by setting up a virtual machine and establishing threat exchange protocols. This integration allows us to use a single console to monitor alerts from both Netskope and SentinelOne, enabling better correlation of security incidents.

I would like to see the product improved, especially in monitoring and security monitoring. It should be more effective so we can better identify cloud access and understand how users are accessing it. We need better visibility on security and cloud storage access.

The logs in Netskope are good, similar to what I had with CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike provided full log coverage, and we need the same for cloud-based solutions like Netskope. Every action should be logged, but I've noticed some gaps with Netskope.

We faced outages a couple of times. 

I haven't faced any issues with the tool's stability. 

Before moving to Netskope, we used McAfee products. This was before COVID, when our cloud usage was minimal and remote access wasn't as prevalent. We procured McAfee's CASB solution to monitor and manage shadow IT. This allowed us to track and block access to unapproved third-party clouds.

We started the POC in December 2023 and began working on the feasibility of the migration. We have reached around 65% of our implementation, with only 35% remaining.

We have very few resources involved, around five to six people from different teams, like the infrastructure team. I am part of the IT security team and manage the platform. Other teams help with access control, which the central security team takes care of.

We use Varonis to scan files and remove broken access permissions for data at rest. We also utilize Microsoft Purview to label sensitive files on our file server. Once this process is complete, we will block access through Netskope. This is our future vision, though we are currently in the implementation phase.

I'm involved in both implementing and supporting the solution. As part of the operations team, I provide knowledge transfer sessions to team members. When implementing new policies, I discuss with team members how to handle alerts and what actions to take when alerts are triggered.

Access with Cisco Umbrella is very different compared to Netskope. Some sites accessible with Cisco Umbrella are blocked by Netskope. We had to revisit each and every policy again. We exported all the configurations from Cisco Umbrella and had to review everything.

Before implementing, go with the POC and have an extended POC session. Clarify everything during the POC because it becomes very difficult to get them on a call for critical issues after the POC. Make sure all concerns are discussed and resolved before implementation.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

The solution is useful for remote workflow access.

Netskope’s CASB provides good visibility of the applications being used. We can use Shadow IT based on the traffic. DLP and CASB are valuable features. The tool provides extensive DLP features. We can create any level of policies and protect our data on-premise or cloud. The tool integrates with all the components very well.

The threat protection features must be improved. Other competitors on the market, like McAfee and Fortinet, provide threat protection features across all the modules.

I have been using the solution for two and a half years.

I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

The tool’s scalability is good. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten. The product is suitable for small and medium-sized businesses.

The support is good, but not up to the mark.

Neutral

The product is very easy to deploy. We have to install an agent on the machines through the distribution systems. It is the only dependency. Apart from that, we don't have any internal components on-premises at the user end. Everything is cloud-driven. I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten. Netskope has its own cloud. We deploy the tool on-premises and on AWS. The product can be deployed for a user within a few minutes. It will take longer to deploy the tool for the whole organization.

The solution provides a very good return on investment. I rate the ROI a ten out of ten.

The pricing is very flexible. I rate the pricing a three out of ten.

Netskope is better than Zscaler.

We are users and partners of the solution. I will recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use the tool to control the use of our email going outside.  We use it to secure our data. We use it for data exfiltration, enforce policies for users who use both personal and corporate accounts, and ensure PCI compliance. We also use it to block malware by detecting and blocking any malware in cloud services immediately. Additionally, we monitor privileged accounts to prevent unauthorized access to our resources. We use it to protect our privileged accounts in Microsoft Azure.

The solution provides information about third-party applications registered to our corporate email address and alerts us when users enroll in other applications using their work email.

The tool helps us detect threats and provides insights. Then, we take necessary measures to ensure users have MFA enrolled and take other security steps.

We are an airline, so our users frequently move between locations. For example, a pilot might log in from one country in the morning and another within a few hours. Netskope helps us guard against threats by detecting if a data exfiltration attempt occurs from a specific location.

I have been using the product for three years. 

We didn't have any issues with Netskope's stability. 

The scalability has been good for us because we didn't have to pay for anything extra. We locked in the price for three years at a significantly reasonable rate. I can't provide more details because the person who handled it left the team, but I believe the decision was based on cost. Given the pandemic period, when many airlines faced financial difficulties due to closed borders, it had to be a very reasonable cost or a suitable payment plan. My company has 1500 users.

I have never used technical support yet. 

We use Microsoft Azure, specifically Microsoft's CASB solution, because most companies, including ours, already use Microsoft products like Microsoft 365. Since it's already part of our subscription, it made sense to evaluate it. If we're satisfied with Microsoft by next year, we might move to it since we already have a subscription.

I rate the tool's deployment ease a nine out of ten. It's a SaaS solution; the deployment process is straightforward, ensuring it's connected internally. For what I use it for daily, it's very accessible and user-friendly, with nothing complex involved.

I wasn't involved in the initial discussions about its cost. However, within the next year, by around June, I'll need to review the vendors' quotes. Typically, our procurement team handles the process by issuing an RFP to vendors to get quotes. From there, we evaluate based on pricing and may conduct a proof of concept to assess value.

My company is mid-size. In our country, having around 2500 employees places us in the midsize category. I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. The tool helps monitor Microsoft Azure activities, such as operational functions and user registrations. It checks if these actions align with normal practices to ensure security. This provides insights into applications integrated into our Azure environment

For a secured web gateway in my company, everything revolves around Netskope CASB and Netskope DLP. I mostly use the tool for cloud access and to ensure a secure web gateway.

The most valuable feature of the product stems from the fact that there is a list of all Netskope POPs, which is the point of presence spread throughout the world. When you work on the backbone of the tool, you can break out, meaning you don't have to come back to your original service provider and then go to your new service provider to use the tool on the internet. If I am in the US or the UK, I can break out at that POP when using Netskope, so I don't need to come back onto my network and go back through my network again to access the product.

The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required.

Netskope is a good product. The tool has a whole new list of features that have come out now, but I have not checked them out.

The product's reporting capabilities have certain shortcomings, making it an area where improvements are required.

The solution's technical support response time is an area that needs to be improved.

I have been using Netskope for seven years. I don't use the product for my customers.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. The uptime offered by the solution is around 99.99 percent.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The product is mostly used in medium to enterprise-sized organizations.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was simple since a user basically just needs an agent to be rolled out.

The solution can be deployed very quickly. It may take you a bit of time to set up the rules, but the rollout of the product to its customers is very quick.

The solution can be deployed on the cloud.

It is an expensive solution.

The customers' budget may influence whether they would choose Palo Alto Networks, Palo Alto Networks K2-Series, or Netskope. I think Palo Alto Networks focuses on offering a bit more enterprise-oriented products, and I would probably also go with medium-sized companies since it is easier to administer than Netskope. Netskope and Palo Alto Networks offer the same functionalities, and it is all about support and implementation.

Palo Alto Networks has more integrations with other products, meaning it has a bigger integration stack with other products, which Netskope doesn't offer. With Palo Alto Networks, I can use EDR and all of its other tools, which Netskope doesn't offer. If I look at things from a consolidated view and consider my customer's requirements in terms of price and cost, then Palo Alto Networks would probably be preferable over Netskope.

It is possible to organize a secured web gateway with the use of Netskope.

In terms of the most efficient real-time data protection related to Netskope, it is possible for users to set up DLP rules in real time.

I have experience with Netskope's analytics and reporting capabilities. The product's analytics part is pretty fine.

I rate the overall product a seven and a half to eight out of ten.

Netskope is an efficient, reliable, and easy-to-manage solution. It goes very granular in blocking some of the features in third-party cloud solutions, like share or download.

Netskope could further onboard new SaaS-based platforms into their CASB solutions. Netskope already has its in-build capabilities, but some might be missing.

From the reverse proxy side, Netskope needs to be more reliable for Microsoft Azure customers. They are still dependent on Microsoft access control from SaaS. It would be good if they could remove this dependency because some customers don't have P1 licenses.

We need Microsoft capabilities to access reverse proxies because it depends on that. Users logging in to their SaaS solution and not using the Netskope agent cannot use this reverse proxy feature. The solution's documentation still needs to be improved.

I have been using Netskope for two years.

I rate Netskope a nine out of ten for stability.

Netskope should improve its customer support in terms of technicality and response time.

The solution’s initial setup is quick and easy.

Netskope is not as expensive as Palo Alto. On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing a six out of ten.

We usually sell Netskope because it's a unified platform for SWG, DLP capabilities, and CASB. Netskope is a strong leader in CASB and has integrated other parts like SWG and NPA. Netskope is a cloud-based solution.

Netskope is a very granular product, and you can do a lot of things with it. Microsoft doesn't onboard all the third-party SaaS-based providers. It doesn't have any granularity to build policies.

Netskope is more suitable for small to medium businesses.

Overall, I rate Netskope an eight out of ten.

I use Netskope in my company for data protection and governance.

The most valuable features of the solution are that the support is very good and the dashboards are easy and intuitive to use.

With Netskope in our company, we want to integrate it with the other applications in our system practically. From an improvement perspective, the aforementioned process should be made easier. The solution's implementations can be made much easier because, currently, it is complex in nature.

I have been using Netskope for three years. I use the solution's latest version.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

In our company, we have around 1,00,000 users of the solution.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I have worked with other products in the past, but I cannot discuss those products.

The implementation part takes some time due to the complexities involved. In general, our company puts in a lot of effort, especially in coordination, to manage the solution's implementation.

In our company, we did not measure the actual time taken to implement the solution, but the overall time taken to implement the solution was around six months.

The solution is deployed on a public cloud.

I cannot disclose the licensing costs attached to the solution. Netskope is a reasonably priced product, but it is not so expensive because there are other products in the market that are more expensive. I rate the product's price a six on a scale of one to ten, where one is expensive, and ten is low price.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.